With the advent of the “Internet of Things,” such as smart objects in the home, office, or facility, the need for simplified interactions with smart objects is rapidly increasing. To facilitate internetworked smart objects and control devices, various communication protocols have been developed. However, these communication protocols may not fully address challenges associated with interacting with smart objects.
In a conventional communication protocol for communicating and/or networking with smart objects, a user interacts with smart objects that are connected to a network by addressing the object according to a generic name that is assigned during a registration process. The smart objects then appear by name on an application display of the control device. When many controllable smart objects having a generic or default name are present in the network, a user-interface challenge arises as users may be frustrated by a long list of all the objects connected in the network. It becomes difficult for users (i.e., humans) to distinguish smart objects that may appear on a display or in a physical space for purposes of selecting individual smart objects for control. In other words, interactions with a device may be difficult because the association between the generic names and the actual objects in a space are not always easily known by the user based simply on seeing the generic name listing in a user interface. When large numbers of smart objects, particularly those of the same type, are present in the home or facility (e.g., in different rooms and levels), it becomes even more challenging for users to know the association between generic names and actual smart objects for the purpose of addressing specific smart objects targeted for interaction. In particular, because the generic name may not be sufficiently descriptive (e.g., SmartBulb1, Smartbulb2, . . . ) a user may have difficulty determining which object name to select for interactions with a particular object of interest.
Interaction and control of smart objects may be provided by radio-frequency (RF) networks (e.g., WiFi, Bluetooth, etc.) based on application interfaces to communication resources and object features provided by the communication protocol. Within such protocols, user interactions with smart objects rely on addressing the objects using RF communications. With the ability to individually address smart objects, users can control an object simply by selecting the smart object based on its name and then entering a command, such as pressing a virtual key on a smart phone to cause the smart object to take an action, change its state or status, report a condition, and so on, based on RF communications addressed to and received from the selected smart object. A user may thereby individually control/interact with any smart object in a network within range of the RF communications. In most cases, such RF communications penetrate walls and floors and provide access to all smart objects in RF communications range in the home or facility. However, this capability makes it difficult to distinguish objects within a single room for room-specific addressing and control.
As noted, when many objects have a generic or default name, it becomes difficult for a user to distinguish one or more smart objects that are within certain areas of interest (e.g., same room) for purposes of control. In some conventional communication/network protocols, object names may be changed using a configuration process. However, changing the object name must be conducted individually. Therefore, in situations in which many objects may be present within a home or facility, discriminating objects that are within a room from other objects within a home or facility may be difficult. Further when many objects, such as objects of the same type may be present within a room in a home or facility, individual renaming may be quite tedious.